The Effect of Parental Involvement Laws

8/7/2019 The Effect of Parental Involvement Laws

1/32

THE EFFECT OF PARENTALINVOLVEMENT LAWS ON THE

INCIDENCE OF ABORTIONAMONG MINORS

by

Michael J. New, Ph.D.1

Summary

This comprehensive analysis of minor abortion data fromnearly all 50 states between 1985 and 1999 demonstrates that state-

level parental involvement laws are effective in reducing the

incidence of abortion among minors. Overall, the findings indicate

that when a state enacts a parental involvement law, the abortion

rate falls by an average of approximately 13.6 percent.

This study is the first of its kind to compare different types

of parental involvement laws. The findings indicate that more

protective parental involvement laws result in even larger abortiondeclines. Laws that require parental consent instead of parental

notification reduce the minor abortion rate by about 19 percent.

Furthermore, laws that mandate the involvement of two parents,

instead of just one parent, reduce the in-state minor abortion rate

by approximately 31 percent.

The overall minor abortion rate in the United States has

fallen by close to fifty percent between 1985 and 1999, and this

study shows that parental involvement laws are an important

causal factor in this decline. Currently about 36 states have a

parental involvement law on the books, but some are more effective

1 Visiting Fellow, Family Research Council, (Center on Family and Religion andCenter Center for Human Life and Bioethics), Assistant Professor of PoliticalScience, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0213, and a BradleyFellow at the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton. Email: [email protected]


2/32

than others in their ability to reduce the incidence of abortion. The laws that

were enacted in Minnesota and Mississippi laws are among the most effective in

reducing abortion rates among minors.

Introduction

During the 2008 election cycle a number of candidates for public office at

national, state and local levels have expressed an interest in reducing the

incidence of abortion. This paper reports on the trends in the incidence of

abortion among minors, both nationally and in the states, with insights as to

which policies, both nationally and at the state level, have been more effective at

reducing the incidence of abortion.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate

that the number of abortions has fallen by approximately 20 percent since 1990.2

However, what has received less attention is the even more dramatic decline in

the incidence of abortion among minors. In 1985, there were 13.5 abortions

performed on minors for every thousand girls between the ages of 13 and 17.

However, by 1999 the abortion rate for minors had fallen by almost 50 percent to

6.5.3

There could be several reasons for this decline in the minor abortion rate.

Several studies have found that during the 1990s teenagers became more likely to

delay sexual activity and to abstain from sex altogether.4 A stronger economy has

been shown to reduce the incidence of abortion among adults5 and may have a

similar impact on minors. However, another reason could be due to the fact that

more states have been enacting parental involvement laws which are having a

clear and significant effect, as this paper delineates later.

2 This figure was calculated by the author for the 47 states reporting data in both 1990 and 2004on the number of abortions performed.3 This figure was calculated for the 33 states reporting data in both 1985 and 1999 on the numberof abortions performed on minors.4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Trends in Sexual Risk Behaviors Among HighSchool Students--United States, 19912001," Centers for Disease Control and PreventionMorbidityand Mortality Weekly Report, September 27, 2002, pp. 856859, atwww.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5138a2.htm (January 22, 2007).5 Rebecca Blank, Christine George, and Rebecca London, State Abortion Rates: The Impact ofPolicies Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment,Journal of HealthEconomics 15 (1996), pp. 513-553.


3/32

Indeed, parental involvement laws pose a unique opportunity for further

reduction in the incidence of minor abortions. They enjoy widespread public

support and are currently in effect in 36 states.6 Furthermore, legislation has been

introduced at the federal level that would strengthen many of these state-level

parental involvement laws. The Child Custody Protection Act in the U.S. Senate

and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) in the U.S. House

would make it a felony for a non-parent to take a child across state lines for the

purpose of obtaining an abortion.

Despite the fact that many states have adopted parental involvement laws,

there has been relatively little research on their effects. Some policy and academic

studies have shown that parental involvement laws are effective at reducing the

incidence of abortion among minors. However, parental involvement laws are

drafted differently. Some require parental consent, others parental notification.

Some require the involvement of two parents, others just one parent.

Unfortunately, no study has compared the effects of these different types of

parental involvement laws.

This study corrects this shortcoming in the academic and policy literature

by undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the various types of

state-level parental involvement laws. In particular, the study examines whether

parental consent laws are more effective than parental notice laws and,

furthermore, whether parental involvement laws that require the involvement of

two parents are more effective than parental involvement laws that require the

involvement of only one parent. The results provide valuable insights as to how

to best design parental involvement laws so they can better protect teenage

mothersand in the process reduce the number of abortions.

Legal Background

In the years following Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court issued a number ofrulings dealing with the issue of minor access to abortions. During this time the

Supreme Court has ruled consistently that states can require minors either to

obtain consent or to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. However,

the Supreme Court has also consistently ruled that parental involvement laws

6Who Decides? 2008 (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, 2008).


4/32

must contain a judicial bypass provision. Judicial bypass provisions are designed

to give minors in abusive family situations the ability to receive permission to

obtain an abortion from a judge.

In Planned Parenthood of Missouri vs. Danforth (1976), the Supreme Court

invalidated a Missouri parental consent statute because it did not contain a

judicial bypass provision. Similarly, in 1979, in Belotti vs. Baird, the Supreme

Court invalidated a Massachusetts parental notice law because it explicitly

required that the parents be notified before a judicial bypass was sought. In later

years the Supreme Court became supportive of parental involvement laws that

were even more protective. In 1990, inHodgson vs. Minnesota, the Supreme Court

upheld a two-parent parental notification statute because its bypass procedure

was adequate. Also, in 1990 the Supreme Court in Ohio vs. Akron Center for

Reproductive Health upheld an Ohio parental notice law that included a 24-hour

waiting period.7

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the

legality of parental involvement laws, adoption of these laws proved to be

relatively slow at the state level. This is partly because many parental

involvement laws were overturned or enjoined by either state courts or lower

federal courts.8 As such, by 1992 only 20 states were enforcing parental

involvement statutes.9

However, by 2000, 32 states were enforcing parental involvement laws10

and as of January 2008, 36 states had parental involvement laws in effect.11 What

was the cause of this increase in parental involvement laws? First, the

conservative jurists appointed by President Reagan and President Bush (41) gave

parental involvement laws a better chance to withstand constitutional scrutiny at

the federal level. Furthermore, in 1992 theSupreme Court in Casey vs. Planned

Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania abandoned its trimester framework in

7 John F. Merz, Catherine Jackson, and Jacob Klerman, A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality,Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994. Womens Rights Law Reporter. Vol. 17,No. 1 (1995), pp. 161.8 John F. Merz, Catherine Jackson, and Jacob Klerman, A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality,Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994. Womens Rights Law Reporter. Vol. 17,No. 1 (1995), pp. 161.9Who Decides? 1992 (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, 1992), p. 125.10Who Decides? 2000 (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, 2000).11Who Decides? 2008 (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, 2008).


5/32

favor of a doctrine of undue burden. This gave parental involvement laws and

other types of incremental pro-life legislation additional constitutional

protection.

Also, legislators made considerable and lasting gains at the state level

during the 1990s. While it is well known that Republicans obtained control of

both the House and the Senate in 1994, the gains they made in the states have

received considerably less attention. In fact, Republicans obtained majority

control of both chambers of the state legislature in 11 additional states in 1994.12

Overall, the number of states where Republicans controlled both chambers of the

state legislature increased from six in 1992 to 18 in 2000.13 Since Republicans are

generally more supportive of legislation than their Democratic counterparts,

their gains at the state level during the 1990s have led to the enactment of more

state-level parental involvement laws.

Other Research

What effect have these parental involvement laws had? Previous research

provides some insights. Most studies indicate that parental involvement statutes

reduce the number of abortions performed on minors within the borders of a

given state.14 However, researchers are divided over whether these laws cause

overall reductions in the number of abortions, partly because minors can

circumvent these laws by obtaining abortions in neighboring states where the

12 Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001 (Washington: GovernmentPrinting Office, 2000), p. 249.13 Ibid.14 Charlotte Ellertson, Mandatory Parental Involvement in Minors Abortions: Effects of theLaws in Minnesota, Missouri, and Indiana,American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 8(August 1997), pp. 13671374; Virginia Cartoof and Lorraine Klerman, Parental Consent forAbortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law,American Journal for Public Health, Vol. 76, No. 4(1986), pp. 397400; James Rogers, Robert Boruch, George Storms, and Dorothy DeMoya, Impactof the Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth,American Journal of PublicHealth, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1991), pp. 294298; Theodore Joyce, Robert Kaestner, and Silvie Coleman,Changes in Abortions and Birth and the Texas Parental Notification Law, The New EnglandJournal of Medicine, Vol. 354, No. 10 (2006), pp 1031-1038; Deborah Haas-Wilson, The Impact ofState Abortion Restrictions on Minors Demand for Abortions, The Journal of Human Resources,Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter 1996), pp. 140158; Deborah Haas-Wilson, The Economic Impact of StatePolicy Restrictions on Abortion: Parental Consent and Notification Laws and Medicaid FundingRestrictions,Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer 1993), pp.498511; Robert Ohsfeldt and Stephan Gohman, Do Parental Involvement Laws ReduceAdolescent Abortion Rates? Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 12, Issue 2 (April 1994), pp.6576; and Michael J. New, The Effect of Pro-Life Legislation on The Incidence of Abortion onMinors. Catholic Social Science Review, Vol 12 (2007), pp. 185-215.


6/32

laws are more permissive.

Some studies focus on individual parental involvement laws. In a study

which separately analyzes parental involvement laws in Indiana, Minnesota, and

Missouri, Ellertson (1997) finds that the minor abortion rate in these states

declines anywhere from 17 percent to 26 percent after the enactment of these

laws. However, she also finds that minors were more likely to travel to other

states to obtain abortions after these laws took effect.15 Ellertson then posits that

the increase in out-of-state abortions could be large enough to offset the in-state

declines completely.16

Similarly, Cartoof and Klerman (1986) found that Massachuettss parental

involvement law, which was passed in 1981, resulted in significantly fewer

minors obtaining in-state abortions and significantly more minors seeking out-of-state abortions. The magnitude of the out-of-state increases appears less than the

in-state decline. The authors remain skeptical, though, that the law was effective

in reducing the number of abortions performed on Massachusetts minors.17

Other case studies, however, have found parental involvement laws to be

more effective. A study of Minnesotas first parental notification law, which was

passed in 1981,18 indicates that it reduced the in-state abortion minor abortion

rate by about 28 percent.19 Another study found little evidence that Minnesota

minors are leaving the state in significant numbers to obtain abortions in

neighboring states.20

Furthermore, a study authored by Theodore Joyce, Robert Kaestner, and

Silvie Coleman and appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006

analyzed the parental notification law that was passed in Texas in 2000. They

15 Charlotte Ellertson, Mandatory Parental Involvement in Minors Abortions: Effects of theLaws in Minnesota, Missouri, and Indiana,American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 8(August 1997), pp. 13671374.16 Ibid., pp. 13711372.17 Virginia Cartoof and Lorraine Klerman, Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of theMassachusetts Law,American Journal for Public Health, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1986), pp. 397400.18 James Rogers, Robert Boruch, George Storms, and Dorothy DeMoya, Impact of the MinnesotaParental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth,American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, No. 3(1991), pp. 294298.19 Calculation by author based on data reported in the article.20 Robert Blum, Michael Resnick, and Trisha Stark, The Impact of a Parental Notification Law onAdolescent Abortion Decision Making,American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 77, No. 5 (May1987), pp. 619620


7/32

found that the law resulted in statistically significant declines in the abortion rate

among 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds and 17- year-olds. This study also found little

evidence that Texas minors were obtaining abortions in other states, but found

some evidence that some 17-year-olds were able to circumvent the law by

waiting until after their 18th birthday for an abortion.21

Furthermore, there are at least four academic studies that use time series

cross-sectional data to analyze simultaneously the effects of several enacted

parental involvement laws.22 These studies all have fairly consistent findings.

They indicate that parental involvement laws reduce the minor abortion rate

anywhere from 13 to 19 percent within the boundaries of a given state.

Furthermore, in every study, these findings achieve conventional levels of

statistical significance.

Shortcomings in the Academic Literature

Overall these studies provide solid evidence that state-level parental

involvement laws are reducing the incidence of abortion among minors within

the boundaries of their given state. However, some shortcomings are prevalent

within the academic literature. First, with the exception of the 2006 article that

appeared in TheNew England Journal of Medicine, no study examines the effect of

these laws on minors of various ages. It is possible that parental involvement

laws might affect older minors differently than younger minors. Also, if the

effects of parental involvement laws are relatively consistent among minors of

differing age groups, the findings would appear more robust and reliable.

More importantly, no study has compared the effects of different types of

parental involvement laws. Indeed, it seems plausible that more stringent

parental involvement lawslaws requiring parental consent or laws requiring21 Theodore Joyce, Robert Kaestner, and Silvie Coleman, Changes in Abortions and Birth and theTexas Parental Notification Law, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 354, No. 10 (2006), pp.1031-1038.22 Deborah Haas-Wilson, The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors Demand forAbortions, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter 1996), pp. 140158; DeborahHaas-Wilson, The Economic Impact of State Policy Restrictions on Abortion: Parental Consentand Notification Laws and Medicaid Funding Restrictions,Journal of Policy Analysis andManagement, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer 1993), pp. 498511; Robert Ohsfeldt and Stephan Gohman,Do Parental Involvement Laws Reduce Adolescent Abortion Rates? Contemporary EconomicPolicy, Vol. 12, Issue 2 (April 1994), pp. 6576. Michael J. New, The Effect of Pro-Life Legislationon The Incidence of Abortion on Minors. Catholic Social Science Review, Vol 12 (2007), pp. 185-215.


8/32

the involvement of two parentsmight result in larger abortion declines.

However, no existing academic or policy study compares the effects of different

types of parental involvement laws (Table 1).

Table 1: Different Types of Parental Involvement Laws23

States with Laws That Require One-Parent Notification

Arkansas March 1, 1989 2000Arizona July 21, 1982 1985Connecticut October 1, 1990 1998Delaware 1996 2000Georgia September 1991 2000Idaho 1996 2000Iowa 1997 2000Kansas July 1, 1992 2000Maryland December 3, 1992 2000Minnesota August 1, 1981 November 6, 1986Nebraska September 6, 1991 2000

Ohio October 1990 2000South Dakota 1998 2000Tennessee November 19, 1992 1996Texas 2000Utah January 1, 1981 2000Virginia 1998 2000West Virginia May 23, 1984 2000

States with Laws That Require One-Parent Consent

Alabama September 23, 1987 2000Indiana September 1984 2000Kentucky July 15, 1994 2000Louisiana November 18, 1981 2000

Maine September 30, 1989 2000Massachusetts April 15, 1981 2000Michigan March 28, 1991 August 5, 1992

March 31, 1993 2000Missouri June 15, 1983 November 4, 1983

August 7, 1985 2000North Carolina 1996 2000Pennsylvania March 20, 1994 2000Rhode Island September 1, 1982 2000South Carolina May 26, 1990 2000Tennessee 1999 2000Wisconsin July 1, 1992 2000Wyoming June 8, 1989 2000

States with Laws That Require Two-Parent Notification

Minnesota October, 1990 2000North Dakota March 31, 1981 2000

23

Data obtained from Jon Merz, Catherine Jackson, and Jacob Klerman, A Review of Abortion Policy:

Legality, Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994. Womens Rights Law Reporter17, no.

1 (1995), pp. 12-57; Who Decides? (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation (various years)).


9/32

States with Laws That Require Two-Parent Consent

Mississippi May 26, 1993 2000

In this analysis, these two shortcomings in the existing academic and policy

literature will be corrected. State-by-state data will be collected on the number of

abortions performed on 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, and 15-year-olds. This way

the effects of parental involvement laws on minors of different age groups can be

analyzed. Furthermore, the different types of parental involvement laws will be

separately analyzed as well. This way it will be possible to determine if parental

consent laws are more effective than parental notification laws and if laws

requiring the involvement of two parents are more effective than those laws

which mandate the involvement of only one parent. More details about the

methodology are below.

Methodology

The empirical test of the impact of these different types of parental

involvement laws involves a series of regressions on dataset that includes minor

abortion data from nearly every state between the years of 1985 and 1999.

Regression analysis is well-suited for this type of research because it allows us to

examine simultaneously the effects of various factors on the central concern of

this paper: the number of abortions performed on minors.


10/32

Regressions will be run on five separate dependent variables. First is the

minor abortion rate which measures the number of abortions that are performed

on females under the age of 17 per thousand females between the age of 13 and

17. The next three dependent variables are the respective abortion rates for 17-

year-olds, 16-year-olds, and 15-year-olds.

The final dependent variable is the abortion rate for 18- and 19-year-olds.

This serves as a control group. Females who are 18 or 19 years old would have

similar demographic characteristics to their 17-, 16-, and 15-year-old

counterparts. However, since 18- and 19-year-olds are no longer minors, they

would not be directly affected by state-level parental involvement laws. As such,

this control group will allow us to better determine if abortion declines are

actually caused by parental involvement laws or broader factors that are

reducing the incidence of abortion among all age groups.

These minor abortion rate statistics are not published and are calculated

by the author using abortion data released by the Centers for Disease Control

and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These variables should

provide us with a good indication of the impact of various types of parental

involvement laws.

Table 2: Dependent Variables

1) Minor Abortion Rate Number of abortions performed on females under 17 perthousand females between 13 and 17

2) 17-Year-Old Abortion Rate Number of abortions performed on 17-year-olds perthousand 17-year-old females



5) 18- to 19-Year-Old Abortion Rate Number of abortions performed on 18- and 19-year-oldsper thousand females 18 and 19 (Control Group)

In the regression analysis, a variety of economic and demographic factors

will be held constant. To capture the impact of the economy, I will include each

states per capita personal income growth and each states change in the


11/32

unemployment rate in the regression model. A series of variables measuring the

racial composition of females between the ages of 13 to 17 in each state will be

included in the model as well.

Also, a teen fertility variable, measuring the number of births per 1,000

women between the ages of 13 and 19, is included in the model. This variable

serves as a proxy for the number of pregnancies that are occurring. Fewer

pregnancies would result in fewer abortions. Similarly, if the fertility variable is

low, it might indicate that a higher proportion of pregnancies are planned, which

would also result in fewer abortions.

Previous research indicates that a variety of state-level laws have an

impact on the incidence of abortion among minors.24 Included in the regression

model are three separate variables which indicate the presence or absence of a

particular type of policy. First is whether a state restricts funding of therapeutic

abortions through Medicaid.25 Second is whether or not a state has an informed

consent statute.26 A third variable indicates the presence of a state ban on partial

birth abortions.27

Of more interest in this study, however, are the effects of the various types

of parental involvement laws. The first set of regressions will analyze the

combined impact of all the parental involvement laws on the minor abortion rate

and the respective abortion rates for 18- and 19-year-olds, 17-year-olds, 16-year-

olds, and 15-year-olds.

The second series of regressions will compare the impact of parental

consent laws to parental notification laws. In the final series of regressions, I will

compare the impact of two- parent parental involvement laws to parental

involvement laws that only require the involvement of one parent. Again, there

24 Michael J. New, Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion AmongMinors, Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report 07-01. February 7, 2007.25 Most states will fund abortions through Medicaid when the pregnancy is the result of rape orwhen the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. However, states differ as towhether they fund abortions that are deemed therapeutic in nature.26 Informed consent statutes differ from state to state, but they all require women seekingabortions to receive additional information about the abortion procedure. This can includeinformation about fetal development, information about the health risks involved with obtainingan abortion, or information about the public and private sources of support for single mothers.Informed consent laws received constitutional protection in the Supreme Courts 1992 Casey vs.Planned Parenthood decision.27 The Supreme Court struck down all state partial birth abortion bans in Stenberg vs. Carhart in2000. However, partial birth abortion bans were upheld in 12 states between 1996 and 2000.


12/32

is a good chance that more stringent parental involvement laws will result in

greater abortion declines. However, this is a topic that has gone unexplored in

the academic and policy literature.

I should also add that the regression model that is utilized is a fixed effects

model where separate indicator variables are included for every state and year.

The data is weighted by state population. Also, the regression is run on the

natural log of the dependent variable so that the effect of each type of legislation

can be expressed in percentage terms.28 As standard, AR1 correction for

autocorrelation is utilized. The complete regression results can be found in

Appendices A, B, and C. A summary of the results from the first regression are

below.

Table 3: Data Sources

Variable Source

Minor Abortion Rate29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(Number of abortions performed on minors U.S. Census Bureauper 1000 females between the age of 13 and 17)

18- and 19-Year-Old Abortion Rate Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(Number of abortions performed on 18- and 19- U.S. Census Bureauyear-olds per 1000 18 and 19 year old females)

17-Year-Old Abortion Rate Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(Number of abortions performed on 17-year-olds U.S. Census Bureauper 1000 17 year old girls)


28 The coefficients for the variables which measure the presence or absence of a particular type oflegislation provide an approximation of the percentage decline in the abortion rate. However, theexact formula for calculating the percentage decline is 100*(eb 1) where b is the regressioncoefficient.29 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports the number of abortions that areperformed on women under the age of 18, but does not report an actual abortion rate for minors.As such, this statistic was calculated by dividing the number of abortions performed on womenunder the age of 18 by the number of females between the ages of 13 to 17 and multiplying byone thousand.


13/32


State Per Capita Personal Income Growth Bureau of Economic Analysis

State Unemployment Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics

Racial demographics by state U.S. Census Bureau

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Who Decides? (various years)

Informed Consent Law Who Decides? (various years)

Parental Involvement Laws Merz, Jackson, Kellerman, andWho Decides? (various years)

Medicaid Funding of Abortions Merz, Jackson, Kellerman, andWho Decides? (various years)

Results

The regression results indicate that a number of different types of laws

result in reductions in the minor abortion rate. Informed consent laws which

provide women seeking abortion with information about public and private

sources of support, health risks involved with an abortion, and fetal

development reduce the minor abortion rate by 3.8 percent. This finding is

statistically significant. The regression model finds that public funding

restrictions reduce the minor abortion rate by 7.8 percent. This finding is also

statistically significant. Finally, partial birth abortion bans have little effect on the

minor abortion rate, a finding that is consistent with much of the academic and

policy literature that has analyzed the effects of partial birth abortion bans.30

Of more interest, however, are the effects of the parental involvement

laws. The regression results indicate that the passage of a parental involvement

law reduces the minor abortion rate by 13.6 percent. This finding is statistically

significant and consistent with other academic and policy studies that have

analyzed the effects of parental involvement laws.

30 Michael J. New, Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion amongMinors, Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report 07-01. February 7, 2007.


14/32

Interestingly, parental involvement laws do not result in declines in the

abortion rate for 18- and 19-year-olds. This is unsurprising. Women in this age

group would likely be demographically similar to their minor counterparts.

However, since they are no longer minors, they would not be directly affected by

the passage of the parental involvement legislation. This finding provides

additional evidence that the abortion decline among minors is caused by the

enactment of the parental involvement legislation and not broader cultural

factors that are reducing the incidence of abortion among all age groups.

Analyzing the different age groups, the results indicate that the passage of

a parental involvement law reduces the abortion rate among 17-year-olds by 18.3

percent, the abortion rate among 16-year-olds by 14.3 percent, and the abortion

rate among 15-year-olds by 8.6 percent. All of these findings achieve

conventional levels of statistical significance. Furthermore, the fact that parental

involvement laws result in consistent and statistically significant abortion

declines across all the age groups strengthens these findings.

Table 4: Testing the Impact of State-Level Laws on Various Age Groups

Technique: Generalized Least Squares with state and year indicator variables, Corrected for Autocorrelation.Data weighted by state population.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Variable Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate(18- and 19- (13- to 17- (17-year-olds) (16-year-olds) (15-year olds)year-olds) year-olds)

(control)

Informed -1.7% -3.8%* -5.4%** -3.6%* 1.4%Consent

Medicaid -0.9% -7.8%** -8.0%* -3.2% -4.0%FundingRestrictionsPartial Birth -1.5% -2.8% -0.8% -5.4% -3.7%Abortion Ban

Parental -0.1% -13.6%*** -18.3%*** -14.3%*** -8.6%***Involvement Law

Number of 570 570 570 570 570observations

R squared .994 .987 .991 .987 .975

*significant at the 10 percent level; **significant at the 5 percent level; ***significant at the 1percent level


15/32

Full regression results can be found in Appendix A..

Analyzing Different Types of Parental Involvement Laws

A. Comparing Parental Consent to Parental Notification Laws

The next regression compares the impact of parental consent laws toparental notification laws. Again, no policy or academic study has ever

compared the effects of parental consent laws to parental notification laws. This

is unfortunate because it seems plausible that parental consent laws might result

in larger abortion reductions than parental notification laws.

This is for several reasons. Consent laws, unlike notification laws, would

effectively give parents the ability to prevent an abortion from being performed

on their daughter. Similarly, a parental consent law would pose a greater

obstacle for a minor who is emancipated or who is not living with her parents.Additionally, a parental notice law might not serve as a deterrent to a minor who

feels she can intercept the notification.

Finally, it should also be noted that abortion providers might have a

greater incentive to follow parental consent laws and verify that minors who are

seeking abortions actually have the consent of a parent. A missed notification can

Figure 1: Analyzing the Impact of Parental Involvement Laws

-20

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

PercentageDecline in theAbortion Rate

Parental Involvement law -18.3 -14.3 -8.6

17-Year-Olds 16-Year-Olds 15-Year-Olds


16/32

possibly be blamed on timing or other incidental factors. However, failure to

obtain consent would likely be seen as the responsibility of the abortion provider

and could result in legal actionespecially if the parents did not approve of the

abortion being performed. The results of the second set of regressions can be

found in Appendix B, and a summary can be found below.

Table 5: Comparing the Effect of Parental Consent and Parental Notification Laws

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate(13- to 17- (17-year-olds) (16-year-olds) (15-year-olds)year-olds)

Parental Consent -18.7%*** -23.1%*** -19.9%*** -16.6%***Law

Parental Notification -4.8%* -9.2%*** -5.9%* -2.1%Law

*significant at the 10 percent level; **significant at the 5 percent level; ***significant at the 1percent levelFull Regression Results Can Be Found in Appendix B

These findings provide evidence that parental consent laws result in

larger abortion reductions than parental involvement laws. Overall, parental

Figure 2: Comparing Parental Consent to Parental Notification

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

PercentageChange in the

Abortion Rate

Parental Consent -23.1 -19.9 -16.6

Parental Notice -9.2 -5.9 -2.1



17/32

consent laws result in an 18.7 percent decline in the minor abortion rate whereas

parental notification laws only result in a decline of around five percent. This

difference is statistically significant. Parental consent laws have their largest

impact on 17-year-olds, resulting in an abortion rate decline of 23.1 percent.

Parental consent laws also result in respective abortion rate declines of 19.9

percent and 16.6 percent among 16-year-olds and 15-year-old females.

Furthermore, among every age group, parental consent laws result in

larger abortion declines than parental notification laws. In each case, these

differences achieve conventional standards of statistical significance. This

provides very solid evidence that parental consent laws are more effective than

parental notice laws. These findings should inform future debates in state

legislatures about how best to protect unborn children.

B. Comparing One-Parent Parental Involvement Laws to Two-Parent Parental

Involvement Laws

The next and final set of regressions compare parental involvement laws

that require the involvement of only one parent to those that mandate the

involvement of both parents. Again, this is a distinction that has been ignored by

the academic and policy literature. While most parental involvement laws

require the involvement of only one parent, three states (North Dakota [1981],

Minnesota [1990], and Mississippi [1993]) have enacted parental involvement

laws that require the involvement of two parents.

Furthermore, it seems likely that parental laws requiring the involvement

of two parents might result in larger abortion declines. A law that requires the

involvement of two parents gives any one parent a better chance to prevent the

abortion from taking place. Similarly, it might be more difficult for a minor to

intercept two separate notifications. Also, while one missed notification could

possibly be blamed on timing or other incidental factors, it would be moredifficult for an abortion provider to justify a pair of missed notifications. Finally,

obtaining the consent of both parents might prove difficult for some minors. The

full results of the third set of regressions can be found in Appendix C, and a

summary can be found in Table 6.


18/32

Table 6: Comparing the Effect of One-Parent and Two-Parent Parental InvolvementLaws


Variable Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate

(13- to 17- (17-year-olds) (16-year-olds) (15-year-olds)year-olds)

Parental Involvement -31.4%*** -35.3%*** -31.3%*** -31.5%***Law (Two-Parent)

Parental Involvement -9.2%*** -13.5%*** -10.1%*** -5.8%*Law (One-Parent)

*significant at the 10 percent level; **significant at the 5 percent level; ***significant at the 1percent level

Full Regression Results Can Be Found in Appendix C.

These findings provide strong evidence that parental involvement laws

which require the involvement of two parents result in larger abortion reductions

than laws that require the involvement of only one parent. Overall, laws

requiring the involvement of two parents result in a 31.4 percent decline in the

minor abortion rate. Conversely, parental involvement laws requiring the

Figure 3: Comparing Parental Involvement Laws

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

PercentageDecline in theAbortion Rate

Two-Parent Parental

Involvement

-35.3 -31.3 -31.5

One-Parent Parental

Involvement

-13.5 -10.1 -5.8



19/32

involvement of only one parent result in a minor abortion rate decline of 13.5

percent. This difference is statistically significant.

Laws requiring the involvement of two parents have their largest impact

on 17-year-olds, resulting in an abortion rate decline of 35.3 percent. These laws

also result in abortion rate declines of 31.3 percent and 31.5 percent among 16-

year-olds and 15-year-olds, respectively.

Furthermore, among every age group, legislation requiring the

involvement of two parents results in larger abortion declines than laws

requiring the involvement of only one parent. In each case, these differences

achieve conventional standards of statistical significance. Overall, laws that

require the involvement of two parents show the most promise for being able to

reduce the incidence of abortion among minors. They are explored in greater

detail in the following section.

A Closer Look at Laws That Require the Involvement of Two Parents

Since 1985, only two states have enacted parental involvement laws

requiring the involvement of two parents. In 1990, Minnesota passed a two-

parent parental notification bill, and Mississippi had a two-parent parental

consent bill take effect in 1993.31 The following two time series charts

demonstrate the effectiveness of these two pieces of legislation. Figures 4 and

Figure 5 depict the trends in the abortion rate for 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, and

15-year-olds in Mississippi and Minnesota, respectively. Both of these charts

show how the minor abortion rates in these states fluctuated over time, then

started a substantial decline after the enactment of parental involvement laws.

Indeed, both the regression findings and these time series charts indicate that

parental involvement laws that require the involvement of two parents possessconsiderable promise for reducing the incidence of abortion among minors.

31 John F. Merz, Catherine Jackson, and Jacob Klerman, A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality,Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994. Womens Rights Law Reporter. Vol. 17,No. 1 (1995), pp. 161.


20/32

Figure 4: Abortion Rates for Minors in Mississippi(Two-Parent Parental Consent Bill Effected 1993)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

17-Year-Old 16-Year-Old 15-Year-Old


21/32

Conclusion

This study contributes to the substantial body of social science research

which indicates that parental involvement laws result in reductions in the

incidence of abortion among minors. Overall, the regression results indicate that

the passage of a parental involvement law reduces the minor abortion rate by

approximately 14 percent. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the

enactment of a parental involvement law results in statistically significant

reductions in the abortion rate among 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, and 15-year-

olds.

Moreover, by comparing various types of parental involvement laws, this

study breaks new ground. The results provide solid evidence that laws that

require parental consent result in larger abortion declines than laws that only

require parental notification. Similarly, legislation requiring the involvement of

two parents results in larger abortion declines than laws requiring the

Figure 5: Abortion Rates for Minors in Minnesota(Two-Parent Parental Notification Bill Passed 1990)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

17-Year -Old 16-Year-Old 15-Year-Old


22/32

involvement of only one parent. These findings hold true for all age groups that

were analyzed.

This research has clear policy implications. While enacting parental

involvement laws is a worthwhile policy goal, these findings indicate that state

legislators and pro-life activists everywhere should make a concerted effort to

strengthen their states parental involvement laws.

Furthermore, these findings have implications for federal legislation as

well. It is entirely possible that some of these in-state abortion reductions could

be offset by minors who obtain abortions in neighboring states where the laws

are more permissive. However, federal legislation has been introduced that

would considerably strengthen these state-level parental involvement laws. The

Child Custody Protection Act that has been introduced in the U.S House and the

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) that has been introduced in

the U.S. Senate would make it a felony for anyone other than a parent to take a

child across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

CIANA passed the House of Representatives, and the Child Custody

Protection Act passed the Senate in 2006. However, this legislation ultimately

was defeated when the Senate Democrats refused to appoint members to a

conference committee to work out the differences in the two pieces of legislation.

Regardless, by making it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion in

neighboring states, these federal laws could considerably strengthen the state-

level parental involvement laws that are already in place. Indeed, both CIANA

and the Child Custody Protection Act should both remain a high priority for

organizations working on federal legislation.

During the 2008 election campaign, abortion will undoubtedly be a major

issue. The Supreme Court appointments by the next President will likely

determine the extent to which federal government and the states are able to

protect unborn children in the future. In recent months, a number of candidatesfrom both parties have expressed an interest in lowering the incidence of

abortion. This, itself, is laudable. However, if voters are serious about reducing

the incidence of abortion, they should support only those candidates who have a

consistent track record of actually supporting pro-life legislation. While

campaign rhetoric does not amount to much, this studyand other


23/32

studiesprovide solid evidence that laws are effective at protecting mothers and

their unborn children.


24/32

Appendix A: Regression Results

Testing the Impact of Parental Involvement Laws on Various Age Groups

Technique: Generalized Least Squares with state and year indicator variables, Corrected for AR1

autocorrelation. Data weighted by state population.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Variable Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate(18- and 19- (13- to 17- (17-year-olds) (16-year-olds) (15-year- olds)

year-olds) year-olds)

Income -0.002 -0.006 -0.011** 0.000 -0.013**Growth (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.006)

Unemploy- -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 0.000 -0.001ment Rate (0.006) (0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.011)

Percent Black 0.025* 0.054** 0.057*** 0.049*** 0.063***(0.015) (0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.019)

Percent Native -0.014 0.035 0.045 0.039 0.055American (0.041) (0.046) (0.045) (0.048) (0.052)

Percent 0.009 0.019 * 0.025*** 0.012 0.008Hispanic (0.010) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.013)

Percent Asian 0.052* 0.006 0.034 0.035 0.014(0.027) (0.030) (0.030) (0.031) (0.034)

Teen Fertility 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.006Rate (0.004) (0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.007)

Informed -0.017 -0.039* -0.056** -0.037* -0.014Consent (0.019) (0.023) (0.022) (0.024) (0.028)

Medicaid -0.009 -0.081** -0.083* -0.033 -0.041Funding (0.037) (0.044) (0.044) (0.047) (0.055)Restrictions

Partial Birth -0.015 -0.028 -0.008 -0.056 -0.038Abortion Ban (0.032) (0.039) (0.040) (0.042) (0.051)

Parental -0.001 0.146*** -0.202*** -0.154*** -0.090***Involvement (0.023) (0.027) (0.027) (0.029) (0.033)Law

Number of 570 570 570 570 570Observations

R squared .994 .987 .991 .987 .975

significant at the 10 percent level; **significant at the 5 percent level; ***significant at the 1 percent level

Note: All regressions we run on the natural log of the dependent variable so that the effect ofeach type of legislation can be expressed in percentage terms.


25/32

Appendix B: Regression Results

Comparing the Effect of Parental Consent and Parental Notification Laws

Technique: Generalized Least Squares with state and year indicator variables, Corrected for AR1autocorrelation. Data weighted by state population.


Variable Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate(13- to 17-year-olds) (17-year-olds) (16-year-olds) (15-year-olds)

Income Growth -0.007* -0.012*** -0.000 -0.014**

(0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.006)

Unemployment Rate 0.000 -0.001 0.002 -0.001(0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.011)

Percent Black 0.038** 0.039 0.033* 0.047**(0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.020)

Percent Native American 0.035 0.046 0.040 0.054(0.046) (0.045) (0.048) (0.052)

Percent Hispanic 0.018 0.025** 0.011 0.005(0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.013)

Percent Asian 0.011 0.041 0.039 0.016(0.030) (0.030) (0.031) (0.034)

Teen Fertility Rate 0.005 0.004 0.007 0.004(0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.007)

Informed Consent -0.037* -0.056** -0.036 -0.008(0.022) (0.023) (0.024) (0.028)

Medicaid Funding -0.070* -0.072* -0.018 -0.015Restrictions (0.044) (0.044) (0.047) (0.055)

Partial Birth -0.036 -0.018 -0.064 -0.045Abortion Ban (0.039) (0.040) (0.042) (0.050)

Parental Consent Law -0.207*** 0.263*** -0.222*** -0.182***(0.036) (0.036) (0.038) (0.043)

Parental Notification -0.049* -0.096*** -0.061* -0.020Law (0.031) (0.031) (0.033) (0.037)

Number of observations 570 570 570 570

R squared .986 .991 .988 .976

significant at the 10 percent level; **significant at the 5 percent level; ***significant at the 1 percentlevel


26/32


Appendix C: Regression Results

Comparing the Effect of Two-Parent Parental Involvement Laws to One-ParentParental Involvement Laws

Technique: Generalized Least Squares with state and year indicator variables, Corrected for AR1Autocorrelation. Data weighted by state population.


Variable Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate Abortion Rate(13- to 17-year-olds) (17-year-olds) (16-year-olds) (15-year-olds)

Income Growth -0.005 -0.010** 0.001 -0.011*

(0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.005)

Unemployment Rate -0.001 -0.003 -0.000 -0.001(0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.010)

Percent Black 0.050*** 0.052** 0.044** 0.059***(0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.019)

Percent Native American 0.047 0.059 0.051 0.066(0.046) (0.045) (0.048) (0.052)

Percent Hispanic 0.014 0.021* 0.007 -0.001(0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.013)

Percent Asian 0.033 0.064** 0.061* 0.042(0.031) (0.030) (0.032) (0.035)

Teen Fertility Rate 0.009 0.008 0.010* 0.009(0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.007)

Informed Consent -0.036* -0.054** -0.034 -0.005(0.022) (0.023) (0.024) (0.029)

Medicaid Funding -0.114*** -0.123*** -0.069 -0.086Restrictions (0.044) (0.045) (0.048) (0.056)

Partial Birth -0.027 -0.009 -0.055 -0.031Abortion Ban (0.039) (0.040) (0.042) (0.051)

Parental Involvement -0.377*** -0.436*** -0.376*** -0.379***Law (Two-Parent) (0.082) (0.078) (0.083) (0.089)

Parental Involvement -0.096*** -0.145*** -0.107*** -0.060*Law (One-Parent) (0.025) (0.026) (0.028) (0.032)

Number of observations 570 570 570 570

R squared .986 .991 .987 .976


27/32

significant at the 10 percent level; **significant at the 5 percent level; ***significant at the 1 percentlevel


Appendix D: Information on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data

Some data is missing or omitted for the following reasons:

1) Failure to Report Data on the Incidence of Abortion

The following states did not report any abortion data to the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention in 1998 and 1999: Alaska, California, NewHampshire, Oklahoma

2) Data Intentionally Omitted by Researcher

Data from Alaska is omitted because of data collection problems. Data

from Kansas is omitted as well. According to Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention data, the abortion rate jumped an astounding 69 percent between

1991 and 1999, and this cannot be traced to any shifts in economics, policy, or

demographics in Kansas or in neighboring states. Instead, it appears that thepresence of a Dr. Tiller who is one of the few doctors in the country who

specializes in late term abortions may be responsible for this increase. Indeed, for

every year between 1992 and 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention reports that over 40 percent of the abortions in Kansas are performed

on out of state residents. This is by far the highest figure for any state.

3) Failure to Report Data on the Incidence of Abortion among Minors

Arkansas 1985California 1985-1997Connecticut 1989-1992Delaware 1985-1996Florida 1985-1999Hawaii 1987Illinois 1988-1999Indiana 1988Kentucky 1999


28/32

Louisiana 1986-1987Massachusetts 1985-1986Michigan 1985-1988New Jersey 1985-1989Ohio 1988Texas 1985Wisconsin 1985-86 and 1989-1990

4) Data Omitted Due to Change in the Data Collection Mechanism

Alabama 1981-1990Illinois 1984-1987Iowa 1981-1997Kentucky 1984-1986New Hampshire 1981-1997Oklahoma 1984-1997West Virginia 1981-1999

Appendix E: States with Parental Involvement Laws 1981-2000

States with Laws That Require One-Parent Notification

Arkansas March 1, 1989 2000

Arizona July 21, 1982 1985Connecticut October 1, 1990 1998Delaware 1996 2000Georgia September 1991 2000Idaho 1996 2000Iowa 1997 2000Kansas July 1, 1992 2000Maryland December 3, 1992 2000Minnesota August 1, 1981 November 6, 1986Nebraska September 6, 1991 2000Ohio October 1990 2000South Dakota 1998 2000

Tennessee November 19, 1992 1996Texas 2000Utah January 1, 1981 2000Virginia 1998 2000West Virginia May 23, 1984 2000

States with Laws That Require One-Parent Consent

Alabama September 23, 1987 2000


29/32

Indiana September 1984 2000Kentucky July 15, 1994 2000Louisiana November 18, 1981 2000Maine September 30, 1989 2000Massachusetts April 15, 1981 2000Michigan March 28, 1991 August 5, 1992

March 31, 1993- 2000Missouri June 15, 1983 November 4, 1983

August 7, 1985 2000North Carolina 1996 2000Pennsylvania March 20, 1994 2000Rhode Island September 1, 1982 2000South Carolina May 26, 1990 2000Tennessee 1999Wisconsin July 1, 1992 2000Wyoming June 8, 1989 - 2000

States with Laws That Require Two-Parent Notification

Minnesota October, 1990 2000North Dakota March 31, 1981 2000

States with Laws That Require Two-Parent Consent

Mississippi May 26, 1993 2000

Appendix F: States where Medicaid pays for Therapeutic Abortions 1981-200032

State Year

Alaska January 1, 1981 1998, 2000

California January 1, 1981 2000

Colorado January 1, 1981 June 4, 1985

Connecticut January 1, 1981 February 15, 1981October 9, 1981 2000

D.C. January 1, 1981 October 1, 1988October 29, 1993 1997

Georgia January 1, 1981 March 15, 1981

32

Data obtained from Jon Merz, Catherine Jackson, and Jacob Klerman, A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality,

Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994. Womens Rights Law Reporter17, no. 1 (1995), pp. 12-57;

Who Decides? 1992 (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, (various years)).


30/32

Hawaii January 1, 1981 2000

Idaho 1995 1998

Illinois December 2, 1994 1998

Maryland January 1, 1981 1997, 1999 2000

Massachusetts January 1, 1981 2000

Michigan January 1, 1981 December 12, 1988

Minnesota 1995 2000

Montana 1996 2000

New Jersey January 1, 1981 2000

New Mexico December 1, 1994 19951999 2000

New York January 1, 1981 2000

North Carolina January 1, 1981 1995

Oregon January 1, 1981 2000

Pennsylvania January 1, 1981 February 15, 1985

Vermont September 28, 1984 2000

Washington January 1, 1981 2000

West Virginia January 1, 1981 2000

Appendix G: States with Informed Consent Laws 1981-200033

State Year

Alabama 1992 present

California 1993 present

Connecticut 1993 present

Delaware 1992 present

33

Data obtained from Who Decides? 1992 (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, (various years)).


31/32

Florida 1992 1997

Idaho 1992 present

Illinois 1993 1994

Kansas 1993 present

Kentucky 1992 present

Louisiana 1992 present

Maine 1995 present

Massachusetts 1992 present

Michigan

34

October 26, 1998 February 1,1999September 15, 1999 2000

Minnesota 1993 present

Mississippi 1993 present

Montana 1992 1995

Nebraska 1992 present

Nevada 1992 present

North Dakota 1995 present

Ohio 1992 1993, 1995 present

Pennsylvania 1992 present

Rhode Island 1992 present

South Carolina 1993 present

South Dakota 1992 present

Tennessee 1992 present

Texas 1993 1995

Utah 1992 present

34

Information obtained from Michigan Right to Life website

http://www.rtl.org/html/legislation/woman_t_right_to_know.html


32/32

Virginia 1992 present

Wisconsin 1992 1996, 1999 present

Appendix H: States with Partial Birth Abortion Bans 1981-200035

State Years

Alabama36 1998 2000

Georgia37 1998 2000

Indiana 1998 2000

Kansas 1999 2000

Mississippi 1998 2000

Nebraska38 1997

North Dakota 2000

Oklahoma 1999 2000

South Carolina 1998 2000

South Dakota 1998 2000

Tennessee 1998 2000

Utah 1997 2000

Virginia39 1999 2000

35

Data obtained from Who Decides? (Washington, D.C.: NARAL Foundation, (various years)).36

A Judge in Alabama ruled that partial birth abortions are allowed if they are necessary to save the life of the mother.37

A Judge in Georgia ruled that partial birth abortions are allowed if they are necessary to save the life of the mother.38

A Judge in Nebraska ruled that partial birth abortions are allowed if they are necessary to save the life of the mother.

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	family-research-council
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

The Effect of Parental Involvement Laws

Documents